Poll: Stannis vs. Daenerys - Better claim?

[Politrukk]

Stannis's claim starts and ends with Robert, Daenerys's legal claim is to a throne held by her family for years if not centuries.

Sure, but that doesn't lend it legitimacy. If you abuse your reign so egregiously, and it's taken away, that right is no longer yours by any measure.

This still irks me about Dany; she still imagines that her family lends her claim weight. It devalues it, in my opinion, as does the fact she's never even been to mainland Westeros, and only experienced Dragonstone as an infant.

The best claim however does not mean the best leader or best choice, these died with Ned and especially Renly.

What leadership qualities did Renly show? He was popular, but flippant and totally inexperienced.

To my legal opinion you are confusing "Right to rule" with "Claimant".

By all acounts I agree with your interpretation of Daenerys but one simply can't lose their legal claim simply by being a bad ruler.

Aside from that fact one must consider that The Mountain That Rides slew all Targaryen claimants that should have actually taken the Mad King's place.

All but the infants Viserys and Daenerys (and possibly a third) perished at the hands of the rebellion.

Claimants in medieval times and even beyond that were important to legitimize war and to maintain a form of stability.

A big part of this was borne in the Catholic Church

It took protestantism for the Dutch and English to legally be able to overthrow/depose their monarchs and it was always the biggest fear for the English that a Catholic ruler would marry into their kingdom for these would change the playing field immensely.

 

[Silvanus]

To my legal opinion you are confusing "Right to rule" with "Claimant".

By all acounts I agree with your interpretation of Daenerys but one simply can't lose their legal claim simply by being a bad ruler.

Aside from that fact one must consider that The Mountain That Rides slew all Targaryen claimants that should have actually taken the Mad King's place.

All but the infants Viserys and Daenerys (and possibly a third) perished at the hands of the rebellion.

Claimants in medieval times and even beyond that were important to legitimize war and to maintain a form of stability.

A big part of this was borne in the Catholic Church

It took protestantism for the Dutch and English to legally be able to overthrow/depose their monarchs and it was always the biggest fear for the English that a Catholic ruler would marry into their kingdom for these would change the playing field immensely.

In legal terms, too, the Targaryen claim has lost its validity-- the laws are set by the Iron Throne.

 

[Lightknight]

Honestly, that's the point of the Game of Thrones. No one has a legitimate claim to the throne. Only the might or diplomacy to win the throne and maintain it is the legitimate claim to the throne. That and only that. Bloodline? Heritage? Doesn't mean shit in the show.

 

[Politrukk]

To my legal opinion you are confusing "Right to rule" with "Claimant".

By all acounts I agree with your interpretation of Daenerys but one simply can't lose their legal claim simply by being a bad ruler.

Aside from that fact one must consider that The Mountain That Rides slew all Targaryen claimants that should have actually taken the Mad King's place.

All but the infants Viserys and Daenerys (and possibly a third) perished at the hands of the rebellion.

Claimants in medieval times and even beyond that were important to legitimize war and to maintain a form of stability.

A big part of this was borne in the Catholic Church

It took protestantism for the Dutch and English to legally be able to overthrow/depose their monarchs and it was always the biggest fear for the English that a Catholic ruler would marry into their kingdom for these would change the playing field immensely.

In legal terms, too, the Targaryen claim has lost its validity-- the laws are set by the Iron Throne.

How can you lose the claim to a seat you created yourself?

Not just by virtue of tyranny.
If anything anyone else would then immediately lose their claim.

The Iron Throne was created by the Targaryens to signify their supremacy over their fallen foes, hence the fabrication out of molten arms.

 

[Terminal Blue]

They should have cut Dorne instead of the Iron islands to be perfectly honest, but that doesn't win them any prizes for scenery and costume design now really right?

Totally agree.

They clearly didn't actually want to include Dorne. I mean, it is clearly such an afterthought that the credits breaks with the standard location naming conventions and simply calls it "Dorne" rather than "Sunspear" or "the Water Gardens". I'm not sure why they felt obligated to include Dorne, especially when familiar locations and characters (like the iron islands) have simply dropped off the planet.

I mean, keeping on topic for this thread. Remember the three leeches which Stannis burned? One of them was for Balon Greyjoy. We don't even know whether Balon is dead in the TV series, which makes including that scene retrospectively kind of pointless.

Not to mention the plotting in the Dorne stuff they did add is downright weird. The most WTF example is having Bron be poisoned in one episode and then immediately given an antidote with no consequences in the next. I mean for what possible reason could that scene exist?

 

[Childe]

Yeah i agree with the people that said that those with the power have the right to the throne. If you don't have the power to conquer the throne for yourself and subjugate your rivals then you really don't have a right to the throne. in otherwords everyone and no one has the right to the throne.

 

[Silvanus]

How can you lose the claim to a seat you created yourself?

Not just by virtue of tyranny.
If anything anyone else would then immediately lose their claim.

The Iron Throne was created by the Targaryens to signify their supremacy over their fallen foes, hence the fabrication out of molten arms.

The creator of the Throne is long dead, and even so, creation doesn't convey unending legal right. The laws are decided by the occupant of the Throne-- if they recognise the movement of legitimacy from Targaryen to Baratheon, then it's legal.

Now, if we entirely refuse to recognise right of conquest, then fair enough, but then Aegon's Conquest was in contravention of the laws of the kingdoms he conquered.